Jamaat-ud-Dawa to approach ICJ over sanctions: Hafiz Saeed

[Goodperson]

Does the ICJ have jurisdiction to hear matters brought to it by non-state actors? Both India and Pakistan would have to become parties to any such case since evidence would need to be submitted by both countries and arguments given on the issue. Would either India or Pakistan accept the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter since that would appear to be required. Another question is which institutions of the UN are empowered to refer the matter to the ICJ and on what grounds?

I have not heard of any organization or group contesting the UN's findings on
this issue. On my understanding it will have to be the Pakistan government which would refer the matter to the ICJ but would it risk this apparent defence of the Let in such an explicit manner. What would Pakistan gain from doing this? These are issues that have to be seriously considered.

Who are non-state actors do they descend from heaven ? Why should India get involved with ICJ ? It does not trust Pakistan hence went to the UN.

 

[daredevil]

Did GOP arrest Hafiz Saeed or not?Isn't Hafiz Saeed declared an international terrorist?

According to the reports, yes, he has been declared terrorist.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I wonder if this banning is permanent and if All five Veto powers got to vote on this issue.

From the UN website:
SECURITY COUNCIL SANCTIONS COMMITTEES: AN OVERVIEW

Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force to international military action.

The use of mandatory sanctions is intended to apply pressure on a State or entity to comply with the objectives set by the Security Council without resorting to the use of force. Sanctions thus offer the Security Council an important instrument to enforce its decisions. The universal character of the United Nations makes it an especially appropriate body to establish and monitor such measures.

The Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. The range of sanctions has included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, financial or diplomatic restrictions.

At the same time, a great number of States and humanitarian organizations have expressed concerns at the possible adverse impact of sanctions on the most vulnerable segments of the population. Concerns have also been expressed at the negative impact sanctions can have on the economy of third countries.

In response to these concerns, relevant Security Council decisions have reflected a more refined approach to the design, application and implementation of mandatory sanctions. These refinements have included measures targeted at specific actors, as well as humanitarian exceptions embodied in Security Council resolutions. Targeted sanctions, for instance, can involve the freezing of assets and blocking the financial transactions of political elites or entities whose behaviour triggered sanctions in the first place. Recently, smart sanctions have been applied to conflict diamonds in African countries, where wars have been funded in part by the trade of illicit diamonds for arms and related materiel.

As part of its commitment to ensure that fair and clear procedures exist for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for removing them, as well as for granting humanitarian exemptions, the Security Council, on 19 December 2006, adopted resolution 1730 (2006) by which the Council requested the Secretary-General to establish within the Secretariat (Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch), a focal point to receive de-listing requests and perform the tasks described in the annex to that resolution.

On 17 April 2000, the members of the Security Council established, on a temporary basis, the Informal Working Group on General Issues of Sanctions to develop general recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions. In 2006 the Working Group submitted its report to the Security Council (S/2006/997), which contained recommendations and best practices on how to improve sanctions.

Detailed information on each sanctions committee, including relevant measures, lists, Committee Guidelines and comprehensive documentation, including official documents and Press Releases, is available on webpages that can be accessed through the links in the column on the left.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Perhaps, I'm not sure, the JuD banning is done under this sanctions committee:
Yes, it is this committee. See the UN press release at the following:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9527.doc.htm

The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) on 15 October 1999 is also known as "the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee".

The sanctions regime has been modified and strengthened by subsequent resolutions, including resolutions 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006) and 1822 (2008) so that the sanctions measures now apply to designated individuals and entities associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and/or the Taliban wherever located. The names of the targeted individuals and entities are placed on the Consolidated List.

The above-mentioned resolutions have all been adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and require all States to take the following measures in connection with any individual or entity associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden and/or the Taliban as designated by the Committee:

* freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze],
* prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals
[travel ban], and
* prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities [arms embargo].

The current Chairman of the Committee, for the period ending 31 December 2008, is H.E. Mr. Jan Grauls (Belgium). The two Vice-Chairs for 2008 are Burkina Faso and the Russian Federation. This website contains general information on the work of the Committee as well as a latest news section. The Committee has guidelines for the conduct of its work. You can also find fact sheets providing basic information on the listing and de-listing procedures as well as on the exemptions to the assets freeze and from the travel ban. The Committee publishes annual reports of its activities and the Chairman of the Committee briefs the Security Council regularly. The Secretariat of the Committee can be contacted by email at: SC-1267-Committee@un.org.The Committee is supported by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team whose reports can be found here. The Team can be contacted by email at: 1267mt@un.org.

The Committee is one of three subsidiary bodies established by the Security Council that deal with terrorism related issues. The other two committees are the Counter-Terrorism Committee (the “CTC&#8221 and the 1540 Committee. The three Committees and their expert groups coordinate their work and cooperate closely and the Committees’ Chairmen also brief the Security Council on the activities of the Committees in joint meetings, when possible. The distinct but complementary roles of the three Committees are described in a comparative table issued jointly and posted on their respective websites.

More information on United Nations counter-terrorism activities and other existing counter-terrorism resources can also be found in the UN Counter-Terrorism Online Handbook.

 

[TruthSeeker]

From what I can tell on first reading, the relevant sanctions committee itself can put individuals and organizations on its list. That is, each proposed new person or group is not voted on by the UNSC as a whole. They have delegated the authority to ban people and groups to this particular sanctions committee for this particular category (al Qaeda and Taliban) of offender(s).

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Who are non-state actors do they descend from heaven ? Why should India get involved with ICJ ? It does not trust Pakistan hence went to the UN.

Why do you always turn a sensible comment into complete nonsense?

 

[Goodperson]

Why do you always turn a sensible comment into complete nonsense?

What is nonsense here in the post? Its JuD problem if they want to goto ICJ why bring India in?

 

[Vinod2070]

What does house arrest for the terrorists mean?

They should be behind bars breaking stones.

 

[Awesome]

From what I can tell on first reading, the relevant sanctions committee itself can put individuals and organizations on its list. That is, each proposed new person or group is not voted on by the UNSC as a whole. They have delegated the authority to ban people and groups to this particular sanctions committee for this particular category (al Qaeda and Taliban) of offender(s).

All these organizations are abandoning proper trials and handing out conviction authorities to different people as they see fit.

On the flip side they have de-listing measures as well. So an appeal will have to be heard.

 

[Awesome]

What does house arrest for the terrorists mean?

They should be behind bars breaking stones.

Nope the Pak courts are not subject to the UN committee. As far as I know there is no law in Pakistan (or in any other country) that the UN can send individuals to jail in their country.

At most, at the behest of the UN, proper investigation can be taken up which Pakistan is already doing and India is refusing to cooperate with.

 

[IceCold]

It means eating biryani in a 5-star hotel.

Stop acting childish and get it over with turning everything into a flame zone.
Enough is already being done actually more then PPP could handle because the way the GOP handled this whole thing up, coming days will be even harder.

 

[IceCold]

Does the ICJ have jurisdiction to hear matters brought to it by non-state actors? Both India and Pakistan would have to become parties to any such case since evidence would need to be submitted by both countries and arguments given on the issue. Would either India or Pakistan accept the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter since that would appear to be required. Another question is which institutions of the UN are empowered to refer the matter to the ICJ and on what grounds?

I have not heard of any organization or group contesting the UN's findings on
this issue. On my understanding it will have to be the Pakistan government which would refer the matter to the ICJ but would it risk this apparent defence of the Let in such an explicit manner. What would Pakistan gain from doing this? These are issues that have to be seriously considered.

This wont happen, not because the question is what will pakistan gain from it but the fact that we really need someone to actually rise up and not just say yes sir to everything. Unfortunately there is no one but as far as what will we gain out of it, the simple fact that Pakistani mission there was not even informed that this is going to happen, if you have anything to say please say as all parties have the right to provide their side of the story, that did not happen, so a simple action like backing the organisation in this case would have given out a very clear message that while we condemn terrorism in all of its forms, Pakistan should not be taken for granted and if India has proof, it will have to share it with Pakistan otherwise we are not just goining to ban our people and call them terrorists, because India said so.

 

[Vinod2070]

Nope the Pak courts are not subject to the UN committee. As far as I know there is no law in Pakistan (or in any other country) that the UN can send individuals to jail in their country.

At most, at the behest of the UN, proper investigation can be taken up which Pakistan is already doing and India is refusing to cooperate with.

I don't understand what are we talking of! Isn't JUD just another alias for LET? Does anyone really doubt that?

Does this Hafeez guy not openly talk of the Islamic flag on the Red fort? Does he not openly claim credit for the Red Fort attack in Delhi?

What is this process we are talking of!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't understand what are we talking of! Isn't JUD just another alias for LET? Does anyone really doubt that?

Does this Hafeez guy not openly talk of the Islamic flag on the Red fort? Does he not openly claim credit for the Red Fort attack in Delhi?

What is this process we are talking of!

Ok, you have got to get a little more serious Vinod, you want him tried for saying that the Islamic flag will fly over the red fort?

I am not familiar with him claiming the Red Fort attack, but lets assume he did. Does Pakistan have a law that can be used to punish him for a crime not committed in Pakistan? Who initiates proceedings against him? And a mere claim made publicly is not going to hold up in court.

What if he shows up in front of the judge and says that he was merely being belligerent and trying to rile the Indians, and that he was never associated with such acts?

So now you are back to square one where you have to establish clear linkages between this specific individual and the act committed. Even if the LeT could be linked to that attack, you would still have to show that this particular member of the LeT participated in the planning, execution of funding of the attack.

Seriously, the Indians are just blazing away with nonsensical demands of 'jail him! He said this or that'. Getting the evidence to link leaders like Hafeez and convicting them is probably the hardest part of going after such organizations. All the dirty work is done by committed people like Lakhvi etc, with these guys hidden behind the scenes.

 

[Flintlock]

Stop acting childish and get it over with turning everything into a flame zone.
Enough is already being done actually more then PPP could handle because the way the GOP handled this whole thing up, coming days will be even harder.

I'm not joking - I actually heard news reports to that effect.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true - these top-terrorists often have influential contacts in the Pakistani establishment - one of the reasons why they can go about their business without the police on the backs.